Archive for Council Drama

Last week’s Development Committee wasn’t as dramatic as the meeting last month, where the “North of London Road” application was refused. In fact at one stage it was very dull. But there were a lot of twists and turns, and a bit of bad feeling. Cllr Toby Mountain writes a report on it here.

In brief:
Tesco Car Parking application – approved
Tiny cafe in Hockley Woods – refused (even though it was an application by the council!)
Conversion of an outbuilding in Rayleigh Town Centre into a house – approved
Retrospective application to remove mechanical wheel cleansing equipment from the big site in Hawkwell – refused.

We heard from our Lib Dem colleague June Lumley today that she is going to seek re-election to the District Council this year – but this time as a Conservative.

June has been both a District and Town councillor in Grange Ward for a long time, with a good reputation that has helped her survive repeated Conservative challenges. June has indeed been a dignified and serene chairman of the District Council this year.

If June had stood as an independent, that would not have been a surprise – June has been an independent on the Town Council for a long time. But standing for the Tories isn’t going to be easy- the Conservatives are pretty unpopular in West Rayleigh right now! Her switch is bound to be seen as an endorsement of the Tory District Core Strategy which may lead to all the proposed development North of London Road.

If she wins it will be interesting to see how she manages moving from the Lib Dems, where she has not been whipped, into a tightly-whipped Conservative Group.

For the local Lib Dems , this gives us the chance for more some vigorous campaigning and recruiting in Grange Ward. In a period of 10 years, we found 7 good candidates in Downhall and Rawreth to stand for us around Rayleigh. No new candidates came from Grange Ward.

It was reasonably lively but without any bad temper. Here’s a few points:

Council Chairman June Lumley was admirably frugal tonight. Most Council Chairman request a buffet with wine for councillors on the night of the December meeting. June didn’t do this, but did arrange refreshments to the public who attended the Civic Carol Service on Sunday, which raised about £245 for charity.

Green Party Leader Michael Hoy made the best point of the evening. The decision to offer free parking on 3 Saturday afternoons before Christmas was taken as “an urgent item” which couldn’t be challenged. Michael asked why the decision was taken so late in the year that it had to be an urgent item. “Didn’t the Council know Christmas was coming?” The answer given was that the council didn’t know it could afford this until quite late in the year. John Mason and Chris Black followed this up later with some forensic questioning , which revealed that the council knew in June it had about £60,000 available – the cost of 3 free Saturday afternoons was about £9,000. Chris Black asked for an earlier decision next year, which might allow an extra free afternoon, either earlier in December or just after Xmas.

UKIP leader John Hayter had a go at the adoption of the “Development Management Plan”: This is basically a new version of the council’s “Bible” of planning policies. Not the zoning of land for development, but all the other policies. Things like the design of new developments, housing density, infilling of gardens, phone masts, what is allowed in the Green Belt, green tourism, playing pitches and other leisure and recreational uses…. John criticised the document because of all the new development proposed in the district, but John Mason, Chris Black, and Michael Hoy pointed out that he was criticising the wrong document for that.

The Tories best part of the night was a report showing that the council’s financial situation was improving.

Ron Oatham made it clear his opinion of central government when John Mason asked whether a certain financial amount “was being lost back to central government, or worse?” Ron immediately called out “Could anything BE worse?”

Chris Black asked how many planning enforcement cases were currently ongoing – the answer was 362, just four less than last year. He asked what could be done to reduce this figure quicker, and was told they would soon have three members of staff again, instead of the current two.

Phil and Tracy Capon are husband and wife, and both are currently Conservative Councillors on Rochford District Council. In fact Phil is the Chair of the Development Committee. Word reached us at the weekend that they had both been deselected by the Conservative Association – so they cannot stand as Conservatives when they both come up for election next May.

This is pretty dramatic by Rochford standards – councillors are very seldom deselected against their wishes, except on the grounds of old age, which doesn’t apply here. Might it possibly be that they can’t manage to slavishly follow the party line? Here’s a few things we have written -on onlineFOCUS over the years:

September 12th, 2014 |

An Admirable Attitude

Rochford Life has a short interview with Hawkwell Tory District Councillor Phil Capon. Phil is Chair of the Development Committee – the one that deals with planning applications. He makes some good points, for example:

I’ve always believed that if you are going to be on the Council you should be open to all views and be open to change. It’s what I don’t like about party politics where it tends to be go with the prevailing view rather than think through alternative possibilities that may be good from other parties.

July 27th, 2014 |

The Ones Who Signed – And The Ones Who Didn’t

These are the 20 Conservative Councillors who signed the motion to abolish ordinary councillors’ rights to call in a decision to full council:

June 20th, 2009 |

A Very Important Principle

At the last meeting of the Standards Committee, there was an item on updating the Councillors Code of Conduct On Planning Matters.

You can find the full officers report here. Chris Black noticed that something quite startling was being suggested by officers:

Members should copy and pass on any lobbying material, such as correspondence or leaflets they receive, to the Head of Planning and Transportation.

This would have meant that if anyone wrote to a councillor about any planning issue, the councillor would have been required to pass a copy on to the Head of Planning – Shaun Scrutton – or otherwise face disciplinary action!

Chris strongly opposed this. One reason is that it would destroy any privacy between councillors and members of the public. (What would be next? Tapping councillors’ phones? ) The other is that it wasn’t practical. On a really contentious planning application, 20 people might write to each councillor. That means that Mr Scrutton would have to receive nearly 800 copies of letters!

Thankfully, other members of the committee supported Chris on this – in particular, Cllr Phil Capon. And the sentence was changed to something reasonable:

October 10th, 2006 |

“Vote for Parent and Child places? – We’ll throw you out of the Tory Group”

At tonight’s District Council Committee meeting we had the debate on whether to allow some Parent and Child bays in our Council Car Parks.

As we wrote a few days ago, the officers were recommending… doing nothing. Apparently there are some spaces that could be widened into Parent and Child spaces, but it would cost an estimated £500 per space (!) to adjust them, and then it might be a problem that they might be left empty when they could be occupied by non-parents.

However the item was up for debate by councillors. The committee has 9 Tories (2 of them didn’t turn up), 1 independent (who didn’t turn up) and 1 Lib Dem (Chris Black.) When the chairman of the committee, Tory Phil Capon , began speaking, it looked like we would get some spaces agreed:

“Since becoming a father my eyes have been opened to the many issues and problems that the parents and carers of children face. I can appreciate what my residents have been telling me for some time.

To return to your car and find you are unable to get your child back in his or her car seat due to the thoughtlessness of others is potentially dangerous and annoying.

I don’t advocate the loss of parking bays but merely that end bays should be designated ‘parent and child”

We continually hear that we must prevent the High Streets from dying and that ‘out of town’ shopping centres are luring people away. This is true – they appreciate the problems and offer suitable parking bays.

We can not only show our commttment to child safety but also that we support local businesses.”

Chris Black felt quite good at this point as he was on balance in favour of the idea and it looked like it was going to happen. BUT THEN – a sombre Cllr Capon continued to speak:

Sadly members, my dream is not to be. Due to the blinkered views of other members, who I can only assume care nothing for the wellbeing of children and who don’t want local shopping centres to survive, a wonderful chance is being lost.

The “whip” is on, I cannot vote against it otherwise I lose my right to represent ny residents. Morally , I cannot vote for the recommendation so I will abstain”

The situation became clear. Cllrs Phil and Tracy Capon had raised the item in the private Tory group meeting. They’d lost out in a vote to the Tory ‘dinosaurs’ . Then the Tory leadership had enforced a whip, so that if Phil Capon voted for Parent and Child parking bays, he’d be thrown out of the Tory group.

After Phil Capon spoke, there was an embarassed silence. Chris jumped in and proposed allowing some Parent and Child parking spaces but didn’t get a seconder. So Tory leader Terry Cutmore proposed having no Parent and Child Bays and Cllr Tony Humphries seconded that.

Chris then scornfully said that in his 20+ years on the council he’d never seen any political party impose a whip on such a small item. He was very disappointed with the Tory group’s behaviour.

A big mistake by the Tory leadership tonight. If they’d let Phil Capon vote with his conscience, the issue would have been over in 5 minutes. But now it won’t be forgotten so quickly, and it shows them in a bad light.

There ‘s a lot happening at the council on Tuesday night. You can download the agenda from here, but here’s the public questions and the call-ins:

First of all , two questions from members of the public:

1 QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC

1.1 the following question has been received from Mr J E Cripps of 5 Durham Way,
Rayleigh, Essex of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr K H Hudson:-
‘On the 21st September 2013 Cllr Hudson issued an open letter making
various personal pledges in respect of the Local Development Framework-
Rayleigh & Rawreth. My question relates to the following “quoted”
statement:-
“To facilitate this it will be necessary to relocate the Rayleigh Sports and
Social Club (a valued facility for our residents), they will receive new and
enhanced facilities in recognition of their contribution to Rayleigh life at no
cost to themselves – this is my pledge.”
Recently the Leader of the Council (Cllr Cutmore) has announced, via the
letters page of the Evening Echo, that there will not be any new and enhanced
facilities for RTSSC.
My question is, therefore, at what Council meeting was this discussed/agreed
and recorded.’

1.1 the following question has been received from Mr R Lambourne of 7 Whitehouse
Court, 158 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh, Essex of the Leader of the Council,
Cllr T G Cutmore:-
‘I note from the latest edition of Rochford District Matters that the Council has
employed a barrister to defend an action by a local resident concerning the
Core Strategy and Allocation Plan.
Can you confirm who authorised the defence of this action and in particular
the considerable extra expense that is presumably budgeted for and will be
paid for out of the council tax and why that authorisation hasn’t been
sanctioned by the Full Council?’

And here are the four call-ins to council by the opposition. If the Tories get their way, this will be the last time anything can be called in to council! The first is an item regarding open spaces taht will be dealt with in private because it has been deemed confidential. The second and third are from UKIP. The fourth is a last-minute one regarding planning policies on density of housing developments, floorspaces etc.

REFERRAL OF DECISIONS TO COUNCIL

1 Draft Open Spaces Strategy
1.1 Pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 15(b) a requisition has
been received in the names of Cllrs C I Black, M Hoy, J R F Mason and R A
Oatham requiring that the decision under Minute 74 (Draft Open Spaces
Strategy) of the meeting of the Executive held on 2 April 2014 be referred to
Full Council.
Note: The report in relation to this decision was exempt, so this referral will
need to be considered following exclusion of the public and press and is
picked up at Item 18 of the Council agenda.

2 Collections Support Officer
2.1 a requisition has been received in the names of Cllrs J Hayter, J C Burton and N J Hookway
requiring that the Portfolio Holder decision on the post of Collections Support
Officer be referred to Full Council.
2.2 A copy of the decision and associated report is set out at Appendix A.
2.3 The reasons given for referral are that the further work envisaged could be
carried out more economically and reasonably by the existing workforce, in
particular without putting at risk £11,650. Further, as there is £11,650
available in case of no additional income, surely this money could be made
available to support our sorely neglected front line services. These include
the proper care and management of our parks and open spaces, the locking
of our park gates to reduce crime, and the Rayleigh car parking fees issue.

3 Essex County Council Call for Waste Sites Submission
3.1 a requisition has been received in the names of Cllrs J Hayter, J C Burton and N J Hookway
requiring that the Portfolio Holder Decision on a waste sites submission be
referred to Full Council.
3.2 A copy of the Decision and associated report is set out at Appendix B
3.3 The reasons given for referral are that this will not be a fair and equitable
service for the people who live in the East of Rochford District, and may
encourage fly tipping. The Council should consider the following options:-
(1) Two sites, one at Michelins Farm and one at the Eastern end of the
Rochford District.
(2) Accept the Michelins Farm Site for the Rochford District but re-instate
the concession at Stock Road, Southend for Rochford District Eastern
Residents.
COUNCIL – 29 July 2014 Item 8
8.2
(3) Provide one centrally located waste site in the Rochford District
accessible to all Rochford District Residents.

Development Management Plan Examination – Proposed Schedule ofModifications to Development Management Submission Document
a requisition has been received in the names of Cllrs C I Black, T E Mountain and R A Oatham
requiring that the Portfolio Holder Decision on approval of the Proposed
Schedule of Modifications to Development Management Submission
Document (April 2013).
1.2 A copy of the decision and associated report is set out in Appendix A.
1.3 The reason given for referral is to allow the Full Council to discuss, amongst
other items:-
Ref MM4 “The density across a site should be a minimum of 30 dwellings per
hectare, unless exceptional circumstances can be satisfactorily demonstrated”
Ref MM9 “New dwellings (both market and affordable housing) must adhere
to the minimum habitable floorspace standards set out in Table 3, unless it
can be clearly demonstrated to be unviable or undeliverable.”
Ref MM56 – “Regarding non-retail uses in primary shopping frontages.”

We have the final vote on car parking charges at an extraordinary council meeting on July 1st. There’s a very good chance that we can win the vote to keep free car parking on Saturday afternoons. Though probably the other increases in charges will go through.

The officers report is signed by Shaun Scrutton as Head of Planning and Transportation , rather than someone on the finance side of things. Here’s some extracts:

DISCUSSION – SATURDAY AFTERNOON CHARGES
5.1 The proposal to reintroduce charges on Saturday afternoons resulted in the
greatest number of objections to the proposed Parking Order, with the
concerns primarily focussing on the car parks in Rayleigh.
5.2 Of most concern to objectors was the possible impact of Saturday afternoon
charges on trading in the town centres and that being the case, Members will
need to determine whether this element of the proposed Parking Order should
be retained

10 RECOMMENDATION
10.1 It is proposed that Council RESOLVES
(1) To agree the revisions to the tariff change for Blue Badge holders, and
the introduction of a one hour concession beyond the expiry time
printed on their ticket.
(2) Determine whether to introduce car parking charges on Saturday
afternoons.
EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL – 1 July 2014 Item 4
4.4
(3) To agree all the remaining proposed changes to the Parking Order
including the tariff revisions and adjustment to the charging period in
Old Ship Lane, Rochford.

Interestingly, the officers’ recommendation is to agree to all the increases and changes proposed EXCEPT for charging on Saturday afternoons. The recommendation on this is merely to make a decision…. so there is no pressure from council officers to start charging on Saturday afternoons.

It would be good to have some people in the public gallery for this one… could be an interesting night. The meeting starts at 7:30 pm at the Civic Suite in Rayleigh.

Choose the layout you want to see

Who We Are

We are Liberal Democrat councillors and campaigners in Rochford District.
We want to improve local decision-making and we see onlineFOCUS as a good way of keep residents informed and involved.
Please click hereto email us .

Comments Policy

We welcome your comments, they are very important to us. However please note:
* We may not necessarily agree with the comments made by our readers
* We ask everyone to treat people with respect when making a comment. No personal abuse please.

Daily Reporting by Chris Black

With support from: Ron Oatham
Bruce Smart
Chris Stanley

Latest Comments

Oz the Positive: Somehow I doubt the words in the grey box at the end will ever be spoken by EuroClagg… ;.I...

admin: Nick’s words: “There’s a tendency to let everything become a process story, and I think that goes...

Linda Kendall: If it wasn’t so cynical it would be funny. Where did they get their transport assessment and...

Legal Statement for the purposes of complying with electoral law:
This website is published and promoted by by Bruce Smart at 12 Ferndale Road, Rayleigh, on behalf of Liberal Democrat Candidates all at 12 Ferndale Road, Rayleigh
The technology and hosting used for this website is provided by 1&1 Internet Limited, The Nova Building, Herschel Street Slough SL1 1XS

500 HOUSES BETWEEN LONDON ROAD AND RAWRETH LANE

There's lots of information on the District Council website about the planning application "North of London Road ".
To see it , just click here.

The Core Strategy

This is the official master document for planning policy in our district! To download it, click here
click here. (2.5mb)

Planning Applications…

If you want information on a particular planning application, you can find it on the District Council website here.

If you want to know what new planning applications have been submitted this week, click here.

Reporting A Problem

If you want to report a problem, you can email Lib Dems councillors by clicking here.
There's also an independent website called FixMyStreet. It's very good for reporting minor street problems like holes in the road, grafitti or failed streetlights. You can find FixMyStreet here.

Food Hygiene Ratings

To find the food hygiene rating for eating places and other businesses in our district , click here.